Obama’s Afghan Legacy in the Balance
By Max Boot
Commentary Magazine
March 14, 2016
General John Campbell, who has just retired from the U.S. Army after leaving the top command post in Afghanistan, voiced some of his frustration in an exit interview with reporters. Not frustration with the sclerotic Afghan government or the implacably hostile Taliban and other foes. He is no doubt plenty frustrated on both counts, but what he choose to focus on in a press conference was his frustration with the Obama administration.
Specifically Campbell expressed frustration, as have many others (including all of Obama’s former secretaries of defense), with the glacial pace of decision-making by the White House: He recalls asking many times of senior decision makers: “Why are we going over this again — I’ve already laid out.” But he had to lay it out and to keep laying it out.
Once he did so, he did get some positive decisions from the president, including his willingness to slow down the pace of the draw-down and to slightly expand the authorities available to U.S. forces to hit ISIS fighters among other targets. But it’s pretty clear he didn’t get all that he was looking for. “If you want to have pressure, if you want to drive [the Taliban] toward reconciliation… I would believe they need to have more pressure put on them,” Campbell said. “One way to do it would be potentially striking” them.
At the moment, as the Washington Post points out, “the United States can conduct air strikes to protect U.S. and allied forces; to protect Afghan troops in imminent danger; and to go after the al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.” But the U.S. can’t conduct air strikes against the Taliban if they are not directly threatening U.S. forces.
That’s a restriction that General David Petraeus, a previous U.S. commander in Afghanistan, believes needs to be relaxed. No doubt Campbell agrees. But reading between the lines of his press conference it’s obvious that he’s had no success in bringing the president and his aides around.
It’s hard to know exactly why Obama won’t grant this concession to the military, but his infamous interviews with Jeff Goldberg provide a clue. As Goldberg noted, in 2009 Obama felt that the Pentagon had “jammed” him on a troop surge for Afghanistan. He had gone along with the surge but only reluctantly — and with a crippling 18-month time limit attached. Ever since then, Obama has been leery of professional military advice — excessively so.
Reportedly the reason that Campbell was not offered the top job at Central Command after his tenure ended in Afghanistan was because he lobbied too vigorously inside the administration for greater troop levels and authorities in Afghanistan. But he wasn’t doing that because he wanted to “jam” the president. He, like other senior generals, was simply giving his best advice based on a keen appreciation of on-the-ground realities. Obama, who is thousands of miles and multiple command layers removed from battlefield realities, would be well advised to listen to the war-fighters rather than to react with haughty disdain.
If Obama doesn’t do more in Afghanistan to beat back the Taliban, his legacy could include not just failed states — and growing terrorist enclaves — in Libya, Syria, and Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.
General John Campbell, who has just retired from the U.S. Army after leaving the top command post in Afghanistan, voiced some of his frustration in an exit interview with reporters. Not frustration with the sclerotic Afghan government or the implacably hostile Taliban and other foes. He is no doubt plenty frustrated on both counts, but what he choose to focus on in a press conference was his frustration with the Obama administration.
Specifically Campbell expressed frustration, as have many others (including all of Obama’s former secretaries of defense), with the glacial pace of decision-making by the White House: He recalls asking many times of senior decision makers: “Why are we going over this again — I’ve already laid out.” But he had to lay it out and to keep laying it out.
Once he did so, he did get some positive decisions from the president, including his willingness to slow down the pace of the draw-down and to slightly expand the authorities available to U.S. forces to hit ISIS fighters among other targets. But it’s pretty clear he didn’t get all that he was looking for. “If you want to have pressure, if you want to drive [the Taliban] toward reconciliation… I would believe they need to have more pressure put on them,” Campbell said. “One way to do it would be potentially striking” them.
At the moment, as the Washington Post points out, “the United States can conduct air strikes to protect U.S. and allied forces; to protect Afghan troops in imminent danger; and to go after the al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.” But the U.S. can’t conduct air strikes against the Taliban if they are not directly threatening U.S. forces.
That’s a restriction that General David Petraeus, a previous U.S. commander in Afghanistan, believes needs to be relaxed. No doubt Campbell agrees. But reading between the lines of his press conference it’s obvious that he’s had no success in bringing the president and his aides around.
It’s hard to know exactly why Obama won’t grant this concession to the military, but his infamous interviews with Jeff Goldberg provide a clue. As Goldberg noted, in 2009 Obama felt that the Pentagon had “jammed” him on a troop surge for Afghanistan. He had gone along with the surge but only reluctantly — and with a crippling 18-month time limit attached. Ever since then, Obama has been leery of professional military advice — excessively so.
Reportedly the reason that Campbell was not offered the top job at Central Command after his tenure ended in Afghanistan was because he lobbied too vigorously inside the administration for greater troop levels and authorities in Afghanistan. But he wasn’t doing that because he wanted to “jam” the president. He, like other senior generals, was simply giving his best advice based on a keen appreciation of on-the-ground realities. Obama, who is thousands of miles and multiple command layers removed from battlefield realities, would be well advised to listen to the war-fighters rather than to react with haughty disdain.
If Obama doesn’t do more in Afghanistan to beat back the Taliban, his legacy could include not just failed states — and growing terrorist enclaves — in Libya, Syria, and Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.
Article Link to Commentary Magazine:
0 Response to " Obama’s Afghan Legacy in the Balance"
Post a Comment